Doctors belittled the provision, too, noting that it could discourage people who otherwise would seek help from talking to healthcare providers out of fear that the police could show up at their door and confiscate their weapons. "The people who arguably most need to be in treatment and most need to feel free to talk about these disturbing impulses, may be the ones we make least likely to do so," Dr. Paul Appelbaum at Columbia University told the Associated Press. Critics say the provision will turn New York into a "psychiatric police state."

Glad to see some common sense from the medical community for a change.

Among the primary concerns is that, with registration, authorities would know where to go for confiscation, an idea already proposed openly by Governor Cuomo himself.

Even if he did propose such a thing, I don't see how he could ever put it into practice. Even through there is no explicit guarantee in the State Constitution about the right to bear arms, there is an explicit guarantee in the Constitution of the United States. Even if they passed a law in New York State banning all weapons, the law would be null and void - the Federal Constitution would supersede that law. Even if they passed a Constitutional Amendment to the State Constitution making weapons illegal, that Amendment would also be null and void - the Federal Constitution would still supersede it.

No one thought that the government would have the right to force its citizens to buy health insurance. But, the Supreme Court allowed it as a tax, eventhough the White House flip flopped on whether it's a penalty or a tax. And how can a tax be used to force people to buy anything? It goes against what a tax is supposed to be and intention of the constitution.

The Constitution means nothing to libs. The country, with the ever increasing third world idiots seeping through its borders, has now moved away from it.

No one thought that the government would have the right to force its citizens to buy health insurance. But, the Supreme Court allowed it as a tax, eventhough the White House flip flopped on whether it's a penalty or a tax. And how can a tax be used to force people to buy anything? It goes against what a tax is supposed to be and intention of the constitution.

That's not true. A lot of people - from both sides - thought that an argument passing off the abomination known as ObamaCare as a tax could theoretically pass constitutional muster; they just thought it unlikely. That you didn't doesn't mean shit.

Besides, there is a big difference between what the Constitution intended (which is, arguably, up to debate) and what the Constitution explicitly states. And the Constitution explicitly states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." No amount of gymnastics short of a new Amendment will change that text or its meaning, something that became crystal clear in Heller.

Really? Finally! Now then, is the chance to get rid of that pesky First Amendment, which is a lot more annoying than the Second. After all, not everybody has a gun but everybody does have something much more dangerous - and annoying: a mouth (literal and figurative). And the problem with mouths is that the idiots tend to fire them off all the time. And that is very frustrating to those of us with two brain-cells to rub together.

You won't be. But only because it's not gonna happen. Or wait... does that mean that if it doesn't happen you will be? If so, I predict that you will be more and more surprised with every passing day, your surprise growing without bounds until you finally die. I wonder who'll be happy then?

Not even close. 5-4 decision and can change. Tons of room for interpretation.

Don't be confused: that a decision could, in theory, change doesn't make it any less clear. The Court's majority opinion was crystal clear and left very little room for interpretation. If and when the Court decides to take another look at this decision, we can revisit the issue. Until then... stare decisis.

Don't be confused: that a decision could, in theory, change doesn't make it any less clear. The Court's majority opinion was crystal clear and left very little room for interpretation. If and when the Court decides to take another look at this decision, we can revisit the issue. Until then... stare decisis.

Oh...so now you're trying to claim that what you meant by clear was that Scalia and crew wrote well.

lol

Always fun watching a child like you squirm...pathetically desperate to look for any way out. lol

Oh...so now you're trying to claim that what you meant by clear was that Scalia and crew wrote well.

What other interpretation could there be? The Court's decision, which is what counts and is binding, is the opinion of the majority. It's a fact that in Heller the Court was crystal clear.

I'll add something else: in your earlier post you said that the decision was 5-4 and thus subject to change; that's true, but then again every decision is. Even a 9-0 decision could, potentially, change in the future if the Court decided to re-examine it. There's no magic vote "limit" above which a decision by the Court becomes immutable from future changes by the Court. Even changes to the Constitution aren't immutable as our silly flirtation with Temperance showed.

"No amount of gymnastics short of a new Amendment will change that text or its meaning, something that became crystal clear in Heller. "

That's 100% accurate. No amount of gymnastics by the Court will change the text of the Constitution. And no amount of gymnastics will change the actual meaning of those words or the intent behind them.

No. The previous Court decision can be changed in a potential revisit by a future Court. It's highly unlikely, but possible. But such a decision would change neither the text nor its actual meaning. It would just give it a new interpretation. There's a word used to describe people who view the Constitution's meaning as something perpetually shifting, to suit the times. You should look it up sometime.

Such a revision, of course, would not be simple. No revisit of a Supreme Court case is simple, much less one like Heller. Especially when the plain text meaning of the text in the Constitution is crystal clear (which was, really, the whole point of Scalia's opinion).

Simple can mean many different things. Heart catheterization/stenting and bypassing are both conceptually simple procedures; that doesn't mean they are simple or particularly easy to perform, although to be fair there are a number of surgeries that a whole less simple.